If you have a medical marijuana card, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that you can’t buy a gun.

Earlier this week the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that medical marijuana card holders do not have a 2nd
amendment right to buy or own a firearm. The ruling applies to the nine
Western states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, including
California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, and Alaska.How the Anti-Gun Ruling came about:
In 2011, The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent out a letter
to all federally licensed gun sellers that prohibited “any person who
is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances from
shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or
ammunition.” Because marijuana is still illegal on a federal level, the
ATF claimed medical marijuana patients in legal states were not exempted
from the rule.
Shortly after that letter went out, S. Rowan
Wilson attempted to purchase a gun for self-defense in Nevada – a state
where medical marijuana is legal. According to Wilson, the sale was
denied on the basis that she possessed a medical marijuana card. Wilson
filed a lawsuit challenging the regulation issued by the ATF, which
maintains that gun sellers should assume that medical marijuana
cardholders use the federally illegal substance.
Wilson said she
doesn’t even use marijuana and only obtained the card as an expression
of support for marijuana legalization. She argued that not only was her
second amendment right being wrongfully taken from her but her 5th
amendment right to due process was being ignored as well.
On
Wednesday, in a 3-0 decision, the 9th Circuit agreed that Congress had
reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk
of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be
associated.” The court’s ruling applied to nine Western states within
the appeals court’s jurisdiction, including six that have legalized
marijuana for medical or recreational purposes: California, Washington,
Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, and Alaska.

“The panel held
that plaintiff’s Second Amendment claims did not fall within the direct
scope of United States v. Dugan, which held that the Second Amendment
does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms,” said
the court’s ruling summary.
“…
Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel nevertheless held that the
fit between the challenged provisions and the Government’s substantial
interest of violence prevention was reasonable, and therefore the
district court did not err by dismissing the Second Amendment claim. The
panel rejected plaintiff’s claims that the challenged laws and Open
Letter (issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives to federal firearms licensees, which prevented plaintiff from
purchasing a firearm) violated the First Amendment.”

Chaz
Rainey, the attorney representing Wilson, said there needs to be more
consistency in the application of the Second Amendment.
Rainey
plans to appeal the decision saying, “We live in a world where having a
medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if
you’re on the no-fly list your constitutional right is still protected.”
… “We are going to litigate this, exhaust whatever remedies we have,”
Rainey said. “When this (ATF) letter was issued, it was issued as part
of a deliberate attempt by the (U.S. Department of Justice) to quell a
political movement.”